270 scra 106; g.r. no.127325 santiago vs. comelec [19 mar 1997]

7/28/2019 270 Scra 106; g.r. No.127325 Santiago vs. Comelec [19 Mar 1997]

1/35

270 SCRA 106; G.R. No.127325 SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC [19 Mar 1997]

Facts: Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed

with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through Peoples Initiative. He based

this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to

directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the

petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-

Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors.

Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The

petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of theRules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional

provision on peoples initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has

been passed; (2) The peoples initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits

constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of peoples initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for I ntervention.

Issues:(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.

(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid,

considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution.

Held:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. Although

the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.

The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to

the Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non

delegari potest). The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and

regulations to implement the exercise of the right to peoples initiative.

The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the

synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political

dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Courts decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether

or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.

(4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern "the conduct of initiative onthe Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as initiativeon amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules andregulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress isauthorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/santiago-vs-comelec-270-scra-106-gr.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/santiago-vs-comelec-270-scra-106-gr.html


2/35

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL ONGPIN, petitioners,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA & CARMEN PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of thePeople's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents.

SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG KONSTITUSYON (DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOODINTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), and LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO(LABAN), petitioners-intervenors.

DAVIDE, JR., J. :

The heart of this controversy brought to us by way of a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the r ight of the people to directlypropose amendments to the Constitution through the system ofinitiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Undoubtedly, thisdemands special attention, as this system of initiative was unknown to the people of this country, except perhaps to a few scholars, before the drafting ofthe 1987 Constitution. The 1986 Constitutional Commission itself, through the original proponent

1and the main sponsor

2of the proposed Article on

Amendments or Revision of the Constitution, characterized this system as "innovative".3Indeed it is, for both under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions,

only two methods of proposing amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution were recognized, viz., (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of allits members and (2) by a constitutional convention.

4For this and the other reasons hereafter discussed, we resolved to give due course to this petition.

On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission on Elections (hereafter, COMELEC) a "Petitionto Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (hereafter, Delfin Petition)

5wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC

for an order

1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country;

2. Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the attached "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapersof general and local circulation;

3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishingsigning stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose.

Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative,6

a group of citizens desirous to avail of the systemintended to institutionalize people power; that he and the members of the Movement and other volunteers intend to exercise the power to directlypropose amendments to the Constitution granted under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution; that the exercise of that power shall be conducted inproceedings under the control and supervision of the COMELEC; that, as required in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, signature stations shall beestablished all over the country, with the assistance of municipal election registrars, who shall verify the signatures affixed by individual signatories; thatbefore the Movement and other volunteers can gather signatures, it is necessary that the time and dates to be designated for the purpose be first fixed inan order to be issued by the COMELEC; and that to adequately inform the people of the electoral process involved, it is likewise necessary that the saidorder, as well as the Petition on which the signatures shall be affixed, be published in newspapers of general and local circulation, under the control andsupervision of the COMELEC.

The Delfin Petition further alleged that the provisions sought to be amended are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI,7Section 4 of Article VII,

8and Section 8

of Article X9of the Constitution. Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution"

10embodying the proposed

amendments which consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the provisions concerning term limits, and with the following proposition:

DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THEPURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?

According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the total numberof registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.

Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, which was forthwith given the numberUND 96-037 (INITIATIVE), the COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued anOrder

11(a) directing Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including

the proposal, proposed constitutional amendment, and the signature form), and the notice of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of general circulationat his own expense" not later than 9 December 1996; and (b) setting the case for hearing on 12 December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.

At the hearing of the Delfin Petition on 12 December 1996, the following appeared: Delfin and Atty. Pete Q. Quadra; representatives of the People'sInitiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA); intervenor-oppositor Senator Raul S. Roco, together with his two other lawyers, andrepresentatives of, or counsel for, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest LawCenter, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LABAN).

12Senator Roco, on that same day, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground

that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.

After hearing their arguments, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within fivedays.

13

On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this special civilaction for prohibition raising the following arguments:


3/35

(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed byCongress. No such law has been passed; in fact, Senate Bill No. 1290 entitledAn Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitution

Amendments by People's Initiative, which petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November 1995, is still pending before the SenateCommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and onlocal legislation. However, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative,which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiativeto amend the Constitution was left to some future law. Former Senator Arturo Tolentino stressed this deficiency in the law in hisprivilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There is not a single word in that law which can be considered asimplementing [the provision on constitutional initiative]. Such implementing provisions have been obviously left to a separate law.

(3) Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication in print media. This indicates that the Act coversonly laws and not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after publication.

(4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern "the conduct of initiative on the Constitution andinitiative and referendum on national and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution isconcerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend theConstitution. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.

(5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limitsconstitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative.

(6) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative; neither the COMELEC nor any other governmentdepartment, agency, or office has realigned funds for the purpose.

To justify their recourse to us via the special civil action for prohibition, the petitioners allege that in the event the COMELEC grants the Delfin Petition,the people's initiative spearheaded by PIRMA would entail expenses to the national treasury for general re-registration of voters amounting to at leastP180 million, not to mention the millions of additional pesos in expenses which would be incurred in the conduct of the initiative itself. Hence, thetranscendental importance to the public and the nation of the issues raised demands that this petition for prohibition be settled promptly and definitely,brushing aside technicalities of procedure and calling for the admission of a taxpayer's and legislator's suit.

14Besides, there is no other plain, speedy,

and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

On 19 December 1996, this Court (a) required the respondents to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice; and(b) issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders, enjoining public respondent COMELEC fromproceeding with the Delfin Petition, and private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative toamend the Constitution.

On 2 January 1997, private respondents, through Atty Quadra, filed their Comment15

on the petition. They argue therein that:

1. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "IT WOULD ENTAIL EXPENSES TO THE NATIONAL TREASURY FOR GENERAL REGISTRATION OF

VOTERS AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST PESOS: ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION (P180,000,000.00)" IF THE "COMELECGRANTS THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT DELFIN BEFORE THE COMELEC.

2. NOT A SINGLE CENTAVO WOULD BE SPENT BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IF THE COMELEC GRANTS THEPETITION OF RESPONDENT DELFIN. ALL EXPENSES IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING ARE ALL FOR THE ACCOUNT OFRESPONDENT DELFIN AND HIS VOLUNTEERS PER THEIR PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES SUBMITTEDTO THE COMELEC. THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE DAILY PER DIEM OF THE SUPERVISING SCHOOL TEACHERS IN THESIGNATURE GATHERING TO BE DEPOSITED and TO BE PAID BY DELFIN AND HIS VOLUNTEERS IS P2,571,200.00;

3. THE PENDING PETITION BEFORE THE COMELEC IS ONLY ON THE SIGNATURE GATHERING WHICH BY LAW COMELECIS DUTY BOUND "TO SUPERVISE CLOSELY" PURSUANT TO ITS "INITIATORY JURISDICTION" UPHELD BY THEHONORABLE COURT IN ITS RECENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN

AUTHORITY VS. COMELEC, ET AL. G.R. NO. 125416;

4. REP. ACT NO. 6735 APPROVED ON AUGUST 4, 1989 IS THE ENABLING LAW IMPLEMENTING THE POWER OF PEOPLE

INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. SENATOR DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO'S SENATE BILL NO.1290 IS A DUPLICATION OF WHAT ARE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN REP. ACT NO. 6735;

5. COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300 PROMULGATED ON JANUARY 16, 1991 PURSUANT TO REP. ACT 6735 WAS UPHELDBY THE HONORABLE COURT IN THE RECENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBIC BAYMETROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VS. COMELEC, ET AL. G.R. NO. 125416 WHERE THE HONORABLE COURT SAID: "THECOMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CAN DO NO LESS BY SEASONABLY AND JUDICIOUSLY PROMULGATING GUIDELINES ANDRULES FOR BOTH NATIONAL AND LOCAL USE, IN IMPLEMENTING OF THESE LAWS."

6. EVEN SENATOR DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO'S SENATE BILL NO. 1290 CONTAINS A PROVISION DELEGATING TO THECOMELEC THE POWER TO "PROMULGATE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUTTHE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." (SEC. 12, S.B. NO. 1290, ENCLOSED AS ANNEX E, PETITION);

7. THE LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION ON THE TERM OF OFFICE OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS PROVIDED UNDER THE 1987CONSTITUTION IS NOT A "REVISION" OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS ONLY AN AMENDMENT. "AMENDMENT ENVISAGES

AN ALTERATION OF ONE OR A FEW SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. REVISION CONTEMPLATES A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT IT SHOULD BE ALTERED." (PP.412-413, 2ND. ED. 1992, 1097 PHIL. CONSTITUTION, BY JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J.).

Also on 2 January 1997, private respondent Delfin filed in his own behalf a Comment16

which starts off with an assertion that the instant petition is a"knee-jerk reaction to a draft 'Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution'. . . which is not formally filed yet." What he filed on 6 December 1996 was an"Initiatory Pleading" or "Initiatory Petition," which was legally necessary to start the signature campaign to amend the Constitution or to put themovement to gather signatures under COMELEC power and function. On the substantive allegations of the petitioners, Delfin maintains as follows:

(1) Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, there is a law, R.A. No. 6735, which governs the conduct ofinitiative to amend theConstitution. The absence therein of a subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, since subtitles are not requirements for the validity orsufficiency of laws.


4/35


5/35

assist them is securing the required number of signatures, as the COMELEC's role in an initiative on the Constitution is limited to the determination ofthe sufficiency of the initiative petition and the call and supervision of a plebiscite, if warranted.

On 20 January 1997, LABAN filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene.

The following day, the IBP filed a Motion for Intervention to which it attached a Petition in Intervention raising the following arguments:

(1) Congress has failed to enact an enabling law mandated under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the required implementing law on the initiative to amend the Constitution.

(3) The Petition for Initiative suffers from a fatal defect in that it does not have the required number of signatures.

(4) The petition seeks, in effect a revision of the Constitution, which can be proposed only by Congress or a constitutionalconvention.

22

On 21 January 1997, we promulgated a Resolution (a) granting the Motions for Intervention filed by the DIK and MABINI and by the IBP, as well as theMotion for Leave to Intervene filed by LABAN; (b) admitting the Amended Petition in Intervention of DIK and MABINI, and the Petitions in Intervention ofSenator Roco and of the IBP; (c) requiring the respondents to file within a nonextendible period of five days their Consolidated Comments on theaforesaid Petitions in Intervention; and (d) requiring LABAN to file its Petition in Intervention within a nonextendible period of three days from notice, andthe respondents to comment thereon within a nonextendible period of five days from receipt of the said Petition in Intervention.

At the hearing of the case on 23 January 1997, the parties argued on the following pivotal issues, which the Court formulated in light of the allegationsand arguments raised in the pleadings so far filed:

1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor,was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequatelycovers such initiative.

2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on theConstitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to theConstitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987Constitution," would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.

4. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing thetime and dates for signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's movement and volunteers inestablishing signature stations; and (c) directing or causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative

on the 1987 Constitution.

5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.

After hearing them on the issues, we required the parties to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda within twenty days and requestedintervenor Senator Roco to submit copies of the deliberations on House Bill No. 21505.

On 27 January 1997, LABAN filed its Petition in Intervention wherein it adopts the allegations and arguments in the main Petition. It further submits thatthe COMELEC should have dismissed the Delfin Petition for failure to state a sufficient cause of action and that the Commission's failure or refusal to doso constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

On 28 January 1997, Senator Roco submitted copies of portions of both the Journal and the Record of the House of Representatives relating to thedeliberations of House Bill No. 21505, as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes on the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee,Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, of 6 June 1989 on House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17.

Private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa filed their Consolidated Comments on the Petitions in Intervention of Senator Roco, DIK and MABINI,and IBP.

23The parties thereafter filed, in due time, their separate memoranda.

24

As we stated in the beginning, we resolved to give due course to this special civil action.

For a more logical discussion of the formulated issues, we shall first take up the fifth issue which appears to pose a prejudicial procedural question.

I

THE INSTANT PETITION IS VIABLE DESPITE THE PENDENCY IN THE COMELEC OF THE DELFIN PETITION.

Except for the petitioners and intervenor Roco, the parties paid no serious attention to the fifth issue, i.e., whether it is proper for this Court to takecognizance of this special civil action when there is a pending case before the COMELEC. The petitioners provide an affirmative answer. Thus:

28. The Comelec has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition filed by private respondent Delfin. This being so, it becomesimperative to stop the Comelec from proceeding any further, and under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 2, a petition forprohibition is the proper remedy.

29. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction and directed to an inferiorcourt, for the purpose of preventing the inferior tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested. (People v.Vera, supra., p. 84). In this case the writ is an urgent necessity, in view of the highly divisive and adverse environmentalconsequences on the body politic of the questioned Comelec order. The consequent climate of legal confusion and politicalinstability begs for judicial statesmanship.


6/35


7/35

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, just two simple, clarificatory questions.

First, on Section 1 on the matter of initiative upon petition of at least 10 percent, there are no details in theprovision on how to carry this out. Do we understand, therefore, that we are leaving this matter to thelegislature?

MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. And do we also understand, therefore, that for as long as the legislature does not pass thenecessary implementing law on this, this will not operate?

MR. SUAREZ. That matter was also taken up during the committee hearing, especially with respect to thebudget appropriations which would have to be legislated so that the plebiscite could be called. We deemed itbest that this matter be left to the legislature. The Gentleman is right. In any event, as envisioned, noamendment through the power of initiative can be called until after five years from the date of the ratification ofthis Constitution. Therefore, the first amendment that could be proposed through the exercise of this initiativepower would be after five years. It is reasonably expected that within that five-year period, the National

Assembly can come up with the appropriate rules governing the exercise of this power.

FR. BERNAS. Since the matter is left to the legislature the details on how this is to be carried out is itpossible that, in effect, what will be presented to the people for ratification is the work of the legislature ratherthan of the people? Does this provision exclude that possibility?

MR. SUAREZ. No, it does not exclude that possibility because even the legislature itself as a body couldpropose that amendment, maybe individually or collectively, if it fails to muster the three-fourths vote in order toconstitute itself as a constituent assembly and submit that proposal to the people for ratification through theprocess of an initiative.

xxx xxx xxx

MS. AQUINO. Do I understand from the sponsor that the intention in the proposal is to vest constituent power inthe people to amend the Constitution?

MR. SUAREZ. That is absolutely correct, Madam President.

MS. AQUINO. I fully concur with the underlying precept of the proposal in terms of institutionalizing popularparticipation in the drafting of the Constitution or in the amendment thereof, but I would have a lot of difficultiesin terms of accepting the draft of Section 2, as written. Would the sponsor agree with me that in the hierarchy oflegal mandate, constituent power has primacy over all other legal mandates?

MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner is right, Madam President.

MS. AQUINO. And would the sponsor agree with me that in the hierarchy of legal values, the Constitution issource of all legal mandates and that therefore we require a great deal of circumspection in the drafting and inthe amendments of the Constitution?

MR. SUAREZ. That proposition is nondebatable.

MS. AQUINO. Such that in order to underscore the primacy of constituent power we have a separate article inthe constitution that would specifically cover the process and the modes of amending the Constitution?

MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam President.

MS. AQUINO. Therefore, is the sponsor inclined, as the provisions are drafted now, to again concede to thelegislature the process or the requirement of determining the mechanics of amending the Constitution by

people's initiative?

MR. SUAREZ. The matter of implementing this could very well be placed in the hands of the NationalAssembly, not unless we can incorporate into this provision the mechanics that would adequately cover all theconceivable situations.

33

It was made clear during the interpellations that the aforementioned Section 2 is limited to proposals to AMEND not to REVISE the Constitution;thus:

MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative, which came aboutbecause of the extraordinary developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes ofamending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of initiativeshould not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section 1 ofthe proposed Article on Amendment or Revision.

34

xxx xxx xxx

MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this process of initiative as a separatesection in the Article on Amendment. Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms ofrealigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up as another separatesection as if it were a self-executing provision?

MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while ago, this process of initiative islimited to the matter of amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total overhaulof the Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by the Committee.


8/35

MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b)in Section 1 to include the process of revision; whereas the process of initiation to amend, which is given to the

public, would only apply to amendments?

MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the Committee.35

Amendments to the proposed Section 2 were thereafter introduced by then Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which the Committee accepted. Thus:

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam President. I propose to substitute the entire Section 2 with the following:

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I have modified the proposed amendment after taking into account themodifications submitted by the sponsor himself and the honorable Commissioners Guingona, Monsod, Rama,Ople, de los Reyes and Romulo. The modified amendment in substitution of the proposed Section 2 will nowread as follows: "SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLYPROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVEPERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER Of REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVEDISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERSTHEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARSFOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVEYEARS THEREAFTER.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISEOF THIS RIGHT.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, considering that the proposed amendment is reflective of the sense containedin Section 2 of our completed Committee Report No. 7, we accept the proposed amendment.

36

The interpellations which ensued on the proposed modified amendment to Section 2 clearly showed that it was a legislative act which must implementthe exercise of the right. Thus:

MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, is it possible for the legislature to set forth certainprocedures to carry out the initiative. . .?

MR. DAVIDE. It can.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislature from asking another bodyto set the proposition in proper form.

MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is correct. In other words, the implementation of this particular right would besubject to legislation, provided the legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage of the requirement.

MR. ROMULO. But the procedures, including the determination of the proper form for submission to the people,may be subject to legislation.

MR. DAVIDE.As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to initiate. In other words, none of theprocedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.

MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I have discussed be legislated?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.37

Commissioner Davide also reaffirmed that his modified amendment strictly confines initiative to AMENDMENTS to

NOT REVISION of

theConstitution. Thus:

MR. DAVIDE. With pleasure, Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment on line 1 refers to"amendment." Does it not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made thedistinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"?

MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should be covered by Section 1. Soinsofar as initiative is concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."

38

Commissioner Davide further emphasized that the process of proposing amendments through initiative must be more rigorous and difficult than theinitiative on legislation. Thus:

MR. DAVIDE. A distinction has to be made that under this proposal, what is involved is an amendment to theConstitution. To amend a Constitution would ordinarily require a proposal by the National Assembly by a vote ofthree-fourths; and to call a constitutional convention would require a higher number. Moreover, just to submitthe issue of calling a constitutional convention, a majority of the National Assembly is required, the import beingthat the process of amendment must be made more rigorous and difficult than probably initiating an ordinarylegislation or putting an end to a law proposed by the National Assembly by way of a referendum. I cannotagree to reducing the requirement approved by the Committee on the Legislative because it would requireanother voting by the Committee, and the voting as precisely based on a requirement of 10 percent. Perhaps, Imight present such a proposal, by way of an amendment, when the Commission shall take up the Article on theLegislative or on the National Assembly on plenary sessions.

39

The Davide modified amendments to Section 2 were subjected to amendments, and the final version, which the Commission approved by a vote of 31 infavor and 3 against, reads as follows:


9/35

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam President. Section 2, as amended, reads as follows: "AMENDMENT TO THISCONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVEUPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTEREDVOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREEPERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALLBE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOROFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDEFOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT.

40

The entire proposed Article on Amendments or Revisions was approved on second reading on 9 July 1986.41

Thereafter, upon his motion forreconsideration, Commissioner Gascon was allowed to introduce an amendment to Section 2 which, nevertheless, was withdrawn. In viewthereof, the Article was again approved on Second and Third Readings on 1 August 1986.

42

However, the Committee on Style recommended that the approved Section 2 be amended by changing "percent" to "per centum"and "thereof" to"therein" and deleting the phrase "by law" in the second paragraph so that said paragraph reads: The Congress

43shall provide for the implementation of

the exercise of this right.44

This amendment was approved and is the text of the present second paragraph of Section 2.

The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed, the system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory.

Has Congress "provided" for the implementation of the exercise of this right? Those who answer the question in the affirmative, like the privaterespondents and intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735.

There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the exercise of the right than through the passage of a statute or legislative act. Thisis the essence or rationale of the last minute amendment by the Constitutional Commission to substitute the last paragraph of Section 2 of Article XVIIthen reading:

The Congress45

shall by law provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

with

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

This substitute amendment was an investiture on Congress of a power to provide for the rules implementing the exercise of the right. The"rules" means "the details on how [the right] is to be carried out."

46

We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is aconsolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was prepared by the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms of theHouse of Representatives on the basis of two House Bills referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. 497, 47which dealt with the ini tiative and referendummentionedin Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill No. 988,

48which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 497, as well as

with initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article X (Local Government) and initiative provided for in Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution.Senate Bill No. 17

49solely dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or resolutions of local government units. The Bicameral

Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently approved on 8 June 1989 bythe Senate

50and by the House of Representatives.

51This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.

But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to "provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?"

A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.

First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution.The said section reads:

Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body uponcompliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (Emphasis supplied).

The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, whichexclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as toamendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people arenot accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system ofinitiative.They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions."

The foregoing conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that this section was lifted from Section 1 of Senate Bill No. 17, which solely referred to astatement of policy on local initiative and referendum and appropriately used the phrases "propose and enact," "approve or reject" and "in whole or inpart."

52

Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the threesystems ofinitiative, and that Section 5 (Requirements) restates the constitutional requirements as to the percentage of the registered voters who mustsubmit the proposal. But unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on theConstitution. Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the Constitution sought to beamended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution. Said paragraph (c) reads in full as follows:

(c) The petition shall state the following:

c.1 contents or text of the proposed lawsought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;

c.2 the proposition;


10/35

c.3 the reason or reasons therefor;

c.4 that it is not one of the exceptions provided therein;

c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and

c.6 an abstract or summary proposition is not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the topof every page of the petition. (Emphasis supplied).

The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed" only strengthens the conclusion that

Section 2, quoted earlier, excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitleis provided forinitiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative andreferendum on national and local laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to theConstitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the rightof the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws.

We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative andReferendum because it is national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative and Referendum) and Subtitle III (Local Initiative andReferendum) leaves no room for doubt that the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and character. It is"national initiative," if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if what isproposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions,provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass. This classification of initiative into nationaland localis actually based on Section 3 of the Act,which we quote for emphasis and clearer understanding:

Sec. 3. Definition of terms

xxx xxx xxx

There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;

a.2 Initiative on Statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and

a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,resolution or ordinance. (Emphasis supplied).

Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there should have been a subtitle on initiative on amendments to the Constitution. 53

A further examination of the Act even reveals that the subtitling is not accurate. Provisions not germane to the subtitle on National Initiative andReferendum are placed therein, like (1) paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 9, which reads:

(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall becomeeffective as to the day of the plebiscite.

(c) A national orlocal initiative proposition approved by majority of the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall becomeeffective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied).

(2) that portion of Section 11 (Indirect Initiative) referring to indirect initiative with the legislative bodies of local governments; thus:

Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. Any duly accredited people's organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect initiativewith the House of Representatives, and other legislative bodies. . . .

and (3) Section 12 onAppeal, since it applies to decisions of the COMELEC on the findings of sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition forinitiative or referendum, which could be petitions for both national and local initiative and referendum.

Upon the other hand, Section 18 on "Authority of Courts" under subtitle III on Local Initiative and Referendum is misplaced,54

since the provision thereinapplies to both national and local initiative and referendum. It reads:

Sec. 18.Authority of Courts. Nothing in this Act shall prevent or preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void anyproposition approved pursuant to this Act for violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the local legislative body to enact thesaid measure.

Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum onnational and local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the

Constitution. Anent the initiative on national legislation, the Act provides for the following:

(a) The required percentage of registered voters to sign the petition and the contents of the petition;

(b) The conduct and date of the initiative;

(c) The submission to the electorate of the proposition and the required number of votes for its approval;

(d) The certification by the COMELEC of the approval of the proposition;

(e) The publication of the approved proposition in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; and


11/35

(f) The effects of the approval or rejection of the proposition.55

As regards local initiative, the Act provides for the following:

(a) The preliminary requirement as to the number of signatures of registered voters for the petition;

(b) The submission of the petition to the local legislative body concerned;

(c) The effect of the legislative body's failure to favorably act thereon, and the invocation of the power of initiative as a consequence thereof;

(d) The formulation of the proposition;

(e) The period within which to gather the signatures;

(f) The persons before whom the petition shall be signed;

(g) The issuance of a certification by the COMELEC through its official in the local government unit concerned as to whether the required number ofsignatures have been obtained;

(h) The setting of a date by the COMELEC for the submission of the proposition to the registered voters for their approval, which must be within theperiod specified therein;

(i) The issuance of a certification of the result;

(j) The date of effectivity of the approved proposition;

(k) The limitations on local initiative; and

(l) The limitations upon local legislative bodies.56

Upon the other hand, as to initiative on amendments to the Constitution, R.A. No. 6735, in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, the word"Constitution" in Section 2; (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3; (c)speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the people; (d)reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should sign the petition; and (e) provides for the date of effectivity of theapproved proposition.

There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of initiative. RA. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliatingblow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service.

57

The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiativeon amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by "empowering" the COMELEC"to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.

58

The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest.59

Therecognized exceptions to the rule are as follows:

(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution;

(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of the Constitution;

(3) Delegation to the people at large;

(4) Delegation to local governments; and

(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.60

Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation oflegislative authority under no. 5 above. However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation i tself is valid. It isvalid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes astandard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.61

A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. Itindicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.

62

Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinatelegislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.

III

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ONAMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID.

It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directlypropose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Rel iance on the COMELEC'spower under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by theCOMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the"completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.

IV


12/35

COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.

Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutionalamendments, or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, theCOMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.

Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by atleast 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. TheDelfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that thepurpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemedvalidly initiated.

The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing iscognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) toprescribe the form of the petition;

63(2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in

each legislative district;64

(3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations;65

and (4) to verify, through its electionregistrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits, and voters' identification cards used in the immediately precedingelection.

66

Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or givencognizance of by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have known that the petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedingsunder the COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, thesaid petition was merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not havebeen dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file theirmemoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time,energy, and resources.

The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift the term limits of elective national and local officials is anamendmentto, and not a revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.

CONCLUSION

This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition forinitiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.

We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given fleshand blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation ofthe right of the people under that system.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

a) GRANTING the instant petition;

b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficientstandard for subordinate legislation;

c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative oramendments to the Constitution; and

d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as againstprivate respondents.

Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr. and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

PUNO, J. , concurring and dissenting:

I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Davide insofar as it orders the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. Iregret, however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement thepeople's initiative to amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should bedismissed. With due respect:

I


13/35

First, I submit that R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution thru initiative. Our effort todiscover the meaning of R.A. No. 6735 should start with the search of the intent of our lawmakers. A knowledge of this intent is critical for the intent ofthe legislature is the law and the controlling factor in its interpretation.

1Stated otherwise, intent is the essence of the law, the spirit which gives life to its

enactment.2

Significantly, the majority decision concedes that ". . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution." Itought to be so for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the law which was a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505

3and Senate Bill No. 17.

4

Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception Therefrom, Whereby People in LocalGovernment Units Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or Resolution Passed by the LocalLegislative Body." Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast,House Bill No. 21505

5expressly included people's initiative to amend the Constitution. Congressman (now Senator) Raul Roco emphasized in his

sponsorship remarks:6

xxx xxx xxx

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ROCO

At the outset, Mr. Roco provided the following backgrounder on the constitutional basis of the proposed measure.

1. As cited in Vera vs.Avelino (1946), the presidential system which was introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the application ofthe principle of separation of powers.

2. While under the parliamentary system of the 1973 Constitution the principle remained applicable, the 1981 amendments to theConstitution of 1973 ensured presidential dominance over the Batasang Pambansa.

Constitutional history then saw the shifting and sharing of legislative powers between the Legislature and the Executivedepartments. Transcending changes in the exercise of legislative power is the declaration in the Philippine Constitution that thePhilippines is a republican state where sovereignty resides in the people and all sovereignty emanates from them.

3. Under the 1987 Constitution, the lawmaking power is still preserved in Congress; however, to institutionalize direct action of thepeople as exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, the Constitution recognizes the power of the people, through the system of initiativeand referendum.

As cited in Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, Congress does not have plenary powers since reserve powers are given tothe people expressly. Section 32 of the same Article mandates Congress to pass at the soonest possible time, a bill on referendumand initiative, and to share its legislative powers with the people.

Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, on the other hand, vests in the people the power to directly propose amendments tothe Constitution through initiative, upon petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters.

Stating that House Bill No. 21505 is the Committee's response to the duty imposed on Congress to implement the exercise by thepeople of the right to initiative and referendum, Mr. Roco recalled the beginnings of the system of initiative and referendum underPhilippine Law. He cited Section 99 of the Local Government Code which vests in the barangay assembly the power to initiatelegislative processes, decide the holding of plebiscite and hear reports of the Sangguniang Barangay, all of which are variations ofthe power of initiative and referendum. He added that the holding of barangay plebiscites and referendum are likewise provided inSections 100 and 101 of the same Code.

Thereupon, for the sake of brevity, Mr. Roco moved that pertinent quotation on the subject which he will later submit to theSecretary of the House be incorporated as part of his sponsorship speech.

He then cited examples of initiative and referendum similar to those contained in the instant Bill among which are the constitutions ofstates in the United States which recognize the right of registered voters to initiate the enactment of any statute or to project anyexisting law or parts thereof in a referendum. These states, he said, are Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Massachusets, Dakota,Oklahoma, Oregon, and practically all other states.

Mr. Roco explained that in certain American states, the kind of laws to which initiative and referendum apply is also withoutlimitation, except for emergency measures, which are likewise incorporated in House Bill No. 21505. He added that the procedureprovided by the Bill from the filing of the petition, the requirements of a certain percentage of supporters to present a proposition, tothe submission to electors are substantially similar to the provisions in American laws. Although an infant in Philippine politicalstructure, the system of initiative and referendum, he said, is a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and the Bil l is patternedafter American experience.

He further explained that the bill has only 12 sections, and recalled that the Constitutional Commissioners saw the system of theinitiative and referendum as an instrument which can be used should the legislature show itself to be indifferent to the needs of thepeople. This is the reason, he claimed, why now is an opportune time to pass the Bill even as he noted the felt necessity of thetimes to pass laws which are necessary to safeguard individual rights and liberties.

At this juncture Mr. Roco explained the process of initiative and referendum as advocated in House Bill No. 21505. He stated that:

1. Initiative means that the people, on their own political judgment, submit a Bill for the consideration of the general elec torate.

2. The instant Bill provides three kinds of initiative, namely; the initiative to amend the Constitution once every five years; theinitiative to amend statutes approved by Congress; and the initiative to amend local ordinances.

3. The instant Bill gives a definite procedure and allows the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to define rules and regulationson the power of initiative.

4. Referendum means that the legislators seek the consent of the people on measures that they have approved.

5. Under Section 4 of the Bill the people can initiate a referendum which is a mode of plebiscite by presenting a petition therefor, butunder certain limitations, such as the signing of said petition by at least 10 percent of the total of registered voters at which everylegislative district is represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof. Within 30 days after receipt of the petition,


14/35

the COMELEC shall determine the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same, and set the date of the referendum within 45 to 90-day period.

6. When the matter under referendum or initiative is approved by the required number of votes, it shall become effective 15 daysfollowing the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette.

In concluding his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Roco stressed that the Members cannot ignore the people's call for initiative andreferendum and urged the Body to approve House Bill No. 21505.

At this juncture, Mr. Roco also requested that the prepared text of his speech together with the footnotes be reproduced as part ofthe Congressional Records.

The same sentiment as to the bill's intent to implement people's initiative to amend the Constitution was stressed by then Congressman (nowSecretary of Agriculture) Salvador Escudero III in his sponsorship remarks, viz:

7

xxx xxx xxx

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ESCUDERO

Mr. Escudero first pointed out that the people have been clamoring for a truly popular democracy ever since, especially in the so-called parliament of the streets. A substantial segment of the population feels, he said, that the form of democracy is there, but notthe reality or substance of it because of the increasingly elitist approach of their representatives to the country's problem.

Whereupon, Mr. Escudero pointed out that the Constitution has provided a means whereby the people can exercise the reservedpower of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, and requested that Sections 1 and 32, Article VI; Section 3, Article X;and Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution be made part of his sponsorship remarks.

Mr. Escudero also stressed that an implementing law is needed for the aforecited Constitutional provisions. While the enactment ofthe Bill will give way to strong competition among cause-oriented and sectoral groups, he continued, it will hasten the politization ofthe citizenry, aid the government in forming an enlightened public opinion, and produce more responsive legislation. The passage ofthe Bill will also give street parliamentarians the opportunity to articulate their ideas in a democratic forum, he added.

Mr. Escudero stated that he and Mr. Roco hoped for the early approval of the Bill so that it can be initially used for the AgrarianReform Law. He said that the passage of House Bill No. 21505 will show that the Members can set aside their personal and politicalconsideration for the greater good of the people.

The disagreeing provisions in Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 were threshed out in a Bicameral Conference Committee.8In the

meeting of the Committee on June 6, 1989,9the members agreed that the two (2) bills should be consolidated and that the consolidated

version should include people's initiative to amend the Constitution as contemplated by House Bill No. 21505. The transcript of the meetingstates:

xxx xxx xxx

CHAIRMAN GONZALES. But at any rate, as I have said, because this is new in our political system, the Senatedecided on a more cautious approach and limiting it only to the local government units because even with thatstage where . . . at least this has been quite popular, ano? It has been attempted on a national basis. Alright.There has not been a single attempt. Now, so, kami limitado doon. And, second, we consider also that it is onlyfair that the local legislative body should be given a chance to adopt the legislation bill proposed, right? Iyongsinasabing indirect system of initiative. If after all, the local legislative assembly or body is willing to adopt it infull orin toto, there ought to be any reason for initiative, ano for initiative. And, number 3, we feel that thereshould be some limitation on the frequency with which it should be applied. Number 4, na the people, thruinitiative, cannot enact any ordinance that is beyond the scope of authority of the local legislative body,otherwise, my God, mag-aassume sila ng power that is broader and greater than the grant of legislative powerto the Sanggunians. And Number 5, because of that, then a proposition which has been the result of asuccessful initiative can only carry the force and effect of an ordinance and therefore that should not deprive the

court of its jurisdiction to declare it null and void for want of authority. Ha, di ba? I mean it is beyond powers oflocal government units to enact. Iyon ang main essence namin, so we concentrated on that. And that is why . . .so ang sa inyo naman includes iyon sa Constitution, amendment to the Constitution eh . . . national laws. Saamin, if you insist on that, alright, although we feel na it will in effect become a dead statute. Alright, and we canagree, we can agree. So ang mangyayari dito, and magiging basic nito, let us not discuss anymore kung alinand magiging basic bill, ano, whether it is the Senate Bill or whether it is the House bill . Logically it should beours sapagkat una iyong sa amin eh. It is one of the first bills approved by the Senate kaya ang number niyan,makikita mo, 17, eh. Huwag na nating pagusapan. Now, if you insist, really iyong features ng national at sakaconstitutional, okay. ____ gagawin na natin na consolidation of both bills.

HON. ROCO. Yes, we shall consolidate.

CHAIRMAN GONZALES. Consolidation of the Senate and House Bill No. so and so.10

When the consolidated bill was presented to the House for approval, then Congressman Roco upon interpellation by Congressman Rodolfo

Albano, again confirmed that it covered people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The record of the House Representative states:

11

xxx xxx xxx

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The Gentleman from Camarines Sur is recognized.

MR. ROCO. On the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions between Senate Bill No.21505 which refers to the system providing for the initiative and referendum, fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, weconsolidated the Senate and the House versions, so both versions are totally intact in the bill. The Senatorsironically provided for local initiative and referendum and the House Representatives correctly provided forinitiative and referendum on the Constitution and on national legislation.

I move that we approve the consolidated bill.


15/35

MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What is the pleasure of the Minority Floor Leader?

MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished sponsor answer just a few questions?

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The Gentlemen will please proceed.

MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say that the only difference in the two bills was that in the Senate versionthere was a provision for local initiative and referendum, whereas the House version has none.

MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version provide purely for local initiative and referendum, whereas in the Houseversion, we provided purely for national and constitutional legislation.

MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding therefore, that the two provisions were incorporated?

MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have a complete initiative and referendum both in the constitutionalamendment and national legislation.

MR. ROCO. That is correct.

MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as municipal resolutions?

MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and referendum is in consonance with the provision of the Constitutionwhereby it mandates this Congress to enact the enabling law, so that we shall have a system which can bedone every five years. Is it five years in the provision of the Constitution?

MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. For constitutional amendments in the 1987 Constitution, it is everyfive years.

MR. ALBANO. For every five years, Mr. Speaker?

MR. ROCO. Within five years, we cannot have multiple initiatives and referenda.

MR. ALBANO. Therefore, basically, there was no substantial difference between the two versions?

MR. ROCO. The gaps in our bill were filled by the Senate which, as I said earlier, ironically was about local,provincial and municipal legislation.

MR. ALBANO. And the two bills were consolidated?

MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

APPROVAL OF C.C.R.ON S.B. NO. 17 AND H.B. NO. 21505

(The Initiative and Referendum Act)

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. There was a motion to approve this consolidated bill on Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No.21505.

Is there any objection? (Silence. The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

Since it is crystalline that the intent of R.A. No. 6735 is to implement the people's initiative to amend the Constitution, it is our bounden duty tointerpret the law as it was intended by the legislature. We have ruled that once intent is ascertained, it must be enforced even if it may not beconsistent with the strict letter of the law and this ruling is as old as the mountain. We have also held that where a law is susceptible of morethan one interpretation, that interpretation which will most tend to effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature will be adopted.

12

The text of R.A. No. 6735 should therefore be reasonably construed to effectuate its intent to implement the people's initiative to amend the Constitution.To be sure, we need not torture the text of said law to reach the conclusion that it implements people's initiative to amend the Constitution. R.A. No.6735 is replete with references to this prerogative of the people.

First, the policy statement declares:

Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body uponcompliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (emphasis supplied)

Second, the law defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact legislations throughan election called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by thepeople.


16/35

Third, the law provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the Constitution. Section 5(b) states that "(a) petition for an initiative on the1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative districtmust be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." It also states that "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may beexercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.

Finally, R.A. No. 6735 fixes the effectivity date of the amendment. Section 9(b) states that "(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approvedby a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite.

It is unfortunate that the majority decision resorts to a strained interpretation of R.A. No. 6735 to defeat its intent which it itself concedes is to implementpeople's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. Thus, it laments that the word "Constitution" is neither germane nor relevant to the policythrust of section 2 and that the statute's subtitling is not accurate. These lapses are to be expected for laws are not always written in impeccable English.

Rightly, the Constitution does not require our legislators to be word-smiths with the ability to write bills with poetic commas like Jose Garcia Villa or inlyrical prose like Winston Churchill. But it has always been our good policy not to refuse to effectuate the intent of a law on the ground that it is badlywritten. As the distinguished Vicente Francisco

13reminds us: "Many laws contain words which have not been used accurately. But the use of inapt or

inaccurate language or words, will not vitiate the statute if the legislative intention can be ascertained. The same is equally true with reference toawkward, slovenly, or ungrammatical expressions, that is, such expressions and words will be construed as carrying the meaning the legislatureintended that they bear, although such a construction necessitates a departure from the literal meaning of the words used.

In the same vein, the argument that R.A. No. 7535 does not include people's initiative to amend the Constitution simply because it lacks a sub-title onthe subject should be given the weight of helium. Again, the hoary rule in statutory construction is that headings prefixed to titles, chapters and sectionsof a statute may be consulted in aid of interpretation, but inferences drawn therefrom are entitled to very little weight, and they can never control the plainterms of the enacting clauses.

14

All said, it is difficult to agree with the majority decision that refuses to enforce the manifest intent or spirit of R.A. No. 6735 to implement the people'sinitiative to amend the Constitution. It blatantly disregards the rule cast in concrete that the letter of the law must yield to its spirit for the letter of t he lawis its body but its spirit is its soul.

15

II

COMELEC Resolution No. 2300,16

promulgated under the stewardship of Commissioner Haydee Yorac, then its Acting Chairman, spelled out theprocedure on how to exercise the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. This is in accord with the delegated power granted by section 20 of R.A.No. 6735 to the COMELEC which expressly states: "The Commission is hereby empowered to promulgate such rules and regulations as may benecessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." By no means can this delegation of power be assailed as infirmed. In the benchmark case ofPelaez v.

Auditor General,17

this Court, thru former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion laid down the test to determine whether there is undue delegation oflegislative power, viz:

xxx xxx xxx

Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill details in the execution, enforcement oradministration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete initself it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate and (b) to fix standard

the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable

to which the delegate must conform in the performance of hisfunctions. Indeed, without a statutory declaration of policy, which is the essence of every law, and, without the aforementionedstandard, there would be no means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within or beyond thescope of his authority. Hence, he could thereby arrogate upon himself the power, not only to make the law, but, also and this isworse to unmake it, by adopting measures inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by the Act of Congress, thus nullifyingthe principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, and, consequently, undermining the very foundation ofour republican system.

Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not meet these well-settled requirements for a valid delegation of the power tofix the details in the enforcement of a law. It does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President.Neither does it give a standard sufficiently precise to avoid the evil effects above referred to.

R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide the COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and regulations ofthe law. As aforestated, section 2 spells out the policy of the law; viz: "The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directlypropose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliancewith the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed." Spread out all over R.A. No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the

delegated power to the COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations from overflowing. Thus, the law states the number of signatures necessary tostart a people's initiative,

18directs how initiative proceeding is commenced,

19what the COMELEC should do upon filing of the petition for initiative,

20

how a proposition is approved,21

when a plebiscite may be held,22

when the amendment takes effect23

and what matters may not be the subject of anyinitiative.

24By any measure, these standards are adequate.

Former Justice Isagani A. Cruz, similarly elucidated that "a sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of the delegates' authority bydefining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected. The purpose of the sufficient standard is toprevent a total transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate."

25In enacting R.A. No. 6735, it cannot be said that Congress

totally transferred its power to enact the law implementing people's initiative to COMELEC. A close look at COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 will showthat it merely provided the procedure to effectuate the policy of R.A. No. 6735 giving life to the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The debates26

in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that the rules of procedure to enforce the people's initiative can be delegated, thus:

MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, it is possible for the legislature to set forth certainprocedures to carry out the initiative. . . ?

MR. DAVIDE. It can.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislature from asking another bodyto set the proposition in proper form.

MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is correct. In other words, the implementation of this particular right would besubject to legislation, provided the legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage of the requirement.

MR. DAVIDE. As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to initiate. In other words, none of theprocedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.


17/35

MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I have discussed be legislated?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

In his book, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers,27

Father Bernas likewise affirmed: "In response to questions of CommissionerRomulo, Davide explained the extent of the power of the legislature over the process: it could for instance, prescribe the 'proper form before(the amendment) is submitted to the people,' it could authorize another body to check the proper form. It could also authorize the COMELEC,for instance, to check the authenticity of the signatures of petitioners. Davide concluded: 'As long as it will not destroy the substantive right toinitiate. In other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.'" Quiteclearly, the prohibition against the legislature is to impair the substantive right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution. It is not,however, prohibited from legislating the procedure to enforce the people's right of initiative or to delegate it to another body like the COMELEC

with proper standard.

A survey of our case law will show that this Court has prudentially refrained from invalidating administrative rules on the ground of lack of adequatelegislative standard to guide their promulgation. As aptly perceived by former Justice Cruz, "even if the law itself does not expressly pinpoint thestandard, the courts will bend backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the statute, if it can, from constitutional infirmity."

28He cited the

ruling in Hirabayashi v. United States,29

viz:

xxx xxx xxx

It is true that the Act does not in terms establish a particular standard to which orders of the military commander are to conform, orrequire findings to be made as a prerequisite to any order. But the Executive Order, the Proclamations and the statute are not to beread in isolation from each other. They were parts of a single program and must be judged as such. The Act of March 21, 1942, wasan adoption by Congress of the Executive Order and of the Proclamations. The Proclamations themselves followed a standardauthorized by the Executive Order the necessity of protecting military resources in the designated areas against espionage andsabotage.

In the case at bar, the policy and the standards are bright-lined in R.A. No. 6735. A 20-20 look at the law cannot miss them. They were notwritten by our legislators in invisible ink. The policy and standards can also be found in no less than section 2, Article XVII of the Constitutionon Amendments or Revisions. There is thus no reason to hold that the standards provided for in R.A. No. 6735 are insufficient for in othercases we have upheld as adequate more general standards such as "simplicity and dignity,"

30"public interest,"

31"public welfare,"

32"interest

of law and order,"33

"justice and equity,"34

"adequate and efficient instruction,"35

"public safety,"36

"public policy",37

"greater national interest",38

"protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates",39

and "promote simplicity, economy and efficiency ingovernment."

40A due regard and respect to the legislature, a co-equal and coordinate branch of government, should counsel this Court to

refrain from refusing to effectuate laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional.

III

It is also respectfully submitted that the petition should he dismissed with respect to the Pedrosas. The inclusion of the Pedrosas in the petition is utterlybaseless. The records show that the case at bar started when respondent Delfin alone and by himself filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Amend theConstitution to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials by People's Initiative. The Pedrosas did not join the petition. It was Senator Roco who moved to

intervene and was allowed to do so by the COMELEC. The petition was heard and before the COMELEC could resolve the Delfin petition, the case atbar was filed by the petitioners with this Court. Petitioners sued the COMELEC. Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa in their capacitiesas founding members of the People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA). The suit is an original action for prohibition with prayer fortemporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

The petition on its face states no cause of action against the Pedrosas. The only allegation against the Pedrosas is that they are founding members ofthe PIRMA which proposes to undertake the signature drive for people's initiative to amend the Constitution. Strangely, the PIRMA itself as anorganization was not impleaded as a respondent. Petitioners then prayed that we order the Pedrosas ". . . to desist from conducting a signature drive fora people's initiative to amend the Constitution." On December 19, 1996, we temporarily enjoined the Pedrosas ". . . f rom conducting a signature drive forpeople's initiative to amend the Constitution." It is not enough for the majority to lift the temporary restraining order against the Pedrosas. It shoulddismiss the petition and all motions for contempt against them without equivocation.

One need not draw a picture to impart the proposition that in soliciting signatures to start a people's initiative to amend the Constitution the Pedrosas arenot engaged in any criminal act. Their s

270 scra 106; g.r. no.127325 santiago vs. comelec [19 mar 1997]

Documents